Now Wait A Minute....

[Still A ThorFan]

Shouldn't Walt Simonson write Thor instead of Mark Protosevich?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Still A Thorfan!

Shouldn't Walt Simonson write Thor instead of Mark Protosevich?

No I should!

Then again, when I spoke to Walt about a movie version of Thor a year ago (on comicboards) he mentioned that he would go back to JIM #83 and use Donald Blake, keeping Asgard hidden until a sequel. So in that respect I agree with him.

I wonder what he would make of the Thor movie synopsis I posted on my website?

www.immortalshandbook.com/shrine2.htm

 

[Still A ThorFan]

What's up Upper! And that is an interesting idea he came up with. At leat Mark is a fan of Thor though.

 

[Upper_Krust]

What's up Upper!

Hiya mate!

And that is an interesting idea he came up with. At leat Mark is a fan of Thor though.

Bryan Singer claimed to be a Superman fan...and look how badly that turned out.

I think setting the whole thing on Asgard is the wrong idea, but good luck to Mark Protosevich. I'm a Thor fan so obviously I want the movie to be great.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

I wonder how it would have looked if he kept Asgard hidden. I just fear Thor looking like Superman, they are both so similiar in terms of the love interest and the secret idenity.

Which is why I want the movie to take place in Asgard and leave earth for a possible sequel.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Hiya mate!



Bryan Singer claimed to be a Superman fan...and look how badly that turned out.

I think setting the whole thing on Asgard is the wrong idea, but good luck to Mark Protosevich. I'm a Thor fan so obviously I want the movie to be great.

Superman Returns was awesome

 

[CConn]

It was. It really, really was.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

Lets not get off topic here.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Shouldn't Walt Simonson write Thor instead of Mark Protosevich?

Simonson is not a screenwriter.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Superman Returns was awesome

It was unbelievable...I'll give it that! t:

 

[Still A ThorFan]

Simonson is not a screenwriter.

Then he could have worked with one.

And Upper, you said it was unbelievable, good or bad?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Still A ThorFan!

And Upper, you said it was unbelievable, good or bad?

I don't want to get into a big debate about it, but I just thought Superman Returns was absolutely rubbish in virtually every way. I would go as far to say that I have never been as disappointed with a movie in my entire life.

But everyone will have their own opinion and I'm cool with that.

I do hope that a new creative team, director and even actors are brought onboard for the next one (whenever that may be), because as it stands the Superman movie franchise is dead to me.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

OK, according to EMPIRE Feige has said "Earth is going to be a portion in the film, but we're not interested, in this first movie, in the idea Dr. Donald Blake bangs a stick and becomes Thor in modern day. "

Good, most of it will take place in Asgard which is what I wanted.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey dude!

OK, according to EMPIRE Feige has said "Earth is going to be a portion in the film, but we're not interested, in this first movie, in the idea Dr. Donald Blake bangs a stick and becomes Thor in modern day. "

Then with all due respect to Mr Feige he simply doesn't understand Thor. However, as a Thor fan I wish him the best of luck, but I won't say I'm not disappointed.

Good, most of it will take place in Asgard which is what I wanted.

Why?

There is no logical benefit to simply having Thor in Asgard.

There is the false logic that Thor on Earth can't work, that its somehow too outlandish an idea.

But its utter nonsense to base the first movie in Asgard.

Point #1: Part of what makes Thor unique is that he is a god on Earth. If you have hundreds of gods all running about from the start it makes Thor less special.

Point #2: Related to the above point. Contrasting Thor with other gods is not going to make him stand out as much as it would by contrasting him with mortals.

Point #3: Related to the above two points. I just think the massive Asgardian cast is going to be too much of a distraction in a movie where the emphasis should be on Thor. An ensemble cast worked in Lord of the Rings, but those movies were not titled "Frodo" or "Aragorn". If you give audiences Thor, Balder, Odin, Sif, Warriors Three to deal with from the start its just going to dilute the impact of Thor.

Point #4: In the history of Marvel movies, those that have deviated most from the origins of the comic have fared the worst.

Point #5: Showing Asgard in the first movie is a bad idea in itself, its like telling everyone that Darth Vader is Luke's father at the beginning of Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope.

Point #6: If the first movie builds to having Thor banished to Midgard* then in that movie we are likely to get arrogant Thor, who is not that heroic a figure. Hes a spoilt, bad tempered, big-headed bully. No one is going to cheer for him.

*Earth.

Point #7: Don Blake is integral to the whole Mighty Thor concept! Hes not merely a physical 'crutch', hes an emotional one as well. Don Blake is Thor's link to humanity and Earth.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

Hey dude!



Then with all due respect to Mr Feige he simply doesn't understand Thor. However, as a Thor fan I wish him the best of luck, but I won't say I'm not disappointed.



Why?

There is no logical benefit to simply having Thor in Asgard.

There is the false logic that Thor on Earth can't work, that its somehow too outlandish an idea.

But its utter nonsense to base the first movie in Asgard.

Point #1: Part of what makes Thor unique is that he is a god on Earth. If you have hundreds of gods all running about from the start it makes Thor less special.

Point #2: Related to the above point. Contrasting Thor with other gods is not going to make him stand out as much as it would by contrasting him with mortals.

Point #3: Related to the above two points. I just think the massive Asgardian cast is going to be too much of a distraction in a movie where the emphasis should be on Thor. An ensemble cast worked in Lord of the Rings, but those movies were not titled "Frodo" or "Aragorn". If you give audiences Thor, Balder, Odin, Sif, Warriors Three to deal with from the start its just going to dilute the impact of Thor.

Point #4: In the history of Marvel movies, those that have deviated most from the origins of the comic have fared the worst.

Point #5: Showing Asgard in the first movie is a bad idea in itself, its like telling everyone that Darth Vader is Luke's father at the beginning of Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope.

Point #6: If the first movie builds to having Thor banished to Midgard* then in that movie we are likely to get arrogant Thor, who is not that heroic a figure. Hes a spoilt, bad tempered, big-headed bully. No one is going to cheer for him.

*Earth.

Point #7: Don Blake is integral to the whole Mighty Thor concept! Hes not merely a physical 'crutch', hes an emotional one as well. Don Blake is Thor's link to humanity and Earth.

OH! I love these healthy discussions!

I happen to like the arrogant Thor. And Upper Krust in this day and age These bad tempered, big headed bullies are whats popular. Look at Tony Soprano, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and the Freddy vs Jason film. I don't mind the idea of Thor taking place in Asgard because if the first film takes place on Earth, then how different is it going to be from Superman or Spiderman?

Why not build up to his banishment, that way the audience will see him mature and become heroic all the while Loki tries to tell us "I told you so."

The film should be very much about Loki as it is Thor. Just think about the story here, you have 2 brothers; one is arrogant, brash, and popular while the other jealous, and feels cheated. In between you have a torn father who is struggling to keep the 2 at peace for the sake of their lives and their world's.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

OH! I love these healthy discussions!

I happen to like the arrogant Thor.

So you dislike the Thor in the comcs, is that what you are saying?

Basically what you are saying is that you want a Mighty Thor movie, but you don't want the Thor from the comics to star in it.

And Upper Krust in this day and age These bad tempered, big headed bullies are whats popular. Look at Tony Soprano, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and the Freddy vs Jason film.

I don't know enough about the Sopranos to comment but certainly the others started as villains, long before they became anti-heroes. Not to mention that Thor isn't an anti-hero, and never has been. Hes a hero.

I don't mind the idea of Thor taking place in Asgard because if the first film takes place on Earth, then how different is it going to be from Superman or Spiderman?

Illogical. Thats like saying because its set on Earth how is Spiderman different to Hulk, Punisher, Batman, Catwoman etc.

Its different because the story is different. Its different because the characters are different. Its different because the sub-text of the movie is different.

Why not build up to his banishment, that way the audience will see him mature and become heroic all the while Loki tries to tell us "I told you so."

Simply because Thor, prior to the banishment was a total jerk, thats the primary reason.

Then go back and look at the points I raised in my previous post.

The film should be very much about Loki as it is Thor.

Certainly it should feature Loki, but he should not be the only villain, for three reasons.

1. Loki is not a mortal, and we need to establish Thor's power in relation to mortals.

2. Loki is not a brawler, and we need to see Thor in fights, since thats his thing - hes a Warrior Born. Therefore he needs a different opponent he can 'throw down' with.

3. Loki is only, really a minor threat. Lets be honest. The movie needs some sort of spectacle to 'WOW' audiences. It needs some sort of world-shaking threat.

Just think about the story here, you have 2 brothers; one is arrogant, brash, and popular while the other jealous, and feels cheated. In between you have a torn father who is struggling to keep the 2 at peace for the sake of their lives and their world's.

So who do we root for then, Odin!?

 

[Still A ThorFan]

Krust: So you dislike the Thor in the comcs, is that what you are saying?

Basically what you are saying is that you want a Mighty Thor movie, but you don't want the Thor from the comics to star in it.

ThorFan: Nay, I love the Thor in the comics, I just loved the Thor from the Blood and Thunder series and Dan Jurgens run a little bit more. I mean no matter who writes Thor, even if he is a horrible writer, I'm always going to buy the comic no matter what. I'm a Thor fan, and always will be.

Krust: I don't know enough about the Sopranos to comment but certainly the others started as villains, long before they became anti-heroes. Not to mention that Thor isn't an anti-hero, and never has been. Hes a hero.

ThorFan: My point was that I feel if the arrogant Thor is seen first, it might go over with the crowd better than you think. At least he would with me.

Krust: Illogical. Thats like saying because its set on Earth how is Spiderman different to Hulk, Punisher, Batman, Catwoman etc.

Its different because the story is different. Its different because the characters are different. Its different because the sub-text of the movie is different.

ThorFan: But we are familiar with Thor so we will see the differences, the general public might be quick to jump and say "He is copying Spiderman, he is copying Superman." I don't know if you heard about the morons saying that the FF4 was a rip off of the Incrediables!

Krust: Simply because Thor, prior to the banishment was a total jerk, thats the primary reason.

ThorFan: So why shouldn't we see that in the film? I think it is vital if the public or maybe ourselves are going to understand him a little bit more. Unlike the comics now we'll be able to get a real feel for him.

Krust: 1. Loki is not a mortal, and we need to establish Thor's power in relation to mortals.

2. Loki is not a brawler, and we need to see Thor in fights, since thats his thing - hes a Warrior Born. Therefore he needs a different opponent he can 'throw down' with.

3. Loki is only, really a minor threat. Lets be honest. The movie needs some sort of spectacle to 'WOW' audiences. It needs some sort of world-shaking threat.

ThorFan: I disagree very much with calling Loki a minor threat, however then team him up with Ulik and his rock trolls or somebody and IF the movie is fully taking place in Asgard Thor and Ulik can beat the living hell out of each other while he tries to save the realm or Loki with the assistance of Ulik and company try to take over earth which Thor saves (thus making it no different from Superman.)

I fear we're never going to agree But who cares, that is what these boards are for, so round 3 DING DING DING!

 

[Upper_Krust]

I just had my whole reply eaten by these ****ing boards which keep logging me out! AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

 

[Still A ThorFan]

I guess I get a break tonight lol

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

ThorFan: Nay, I love the Thor in the comics, I just loved the Thor from the Blood and Thunder series and Dan Jurgens run a little bit more.

So basically you hate the normal Thor and only like him when hes mentally ill or has lost his humanity (I presume, by Jurgens you mean the King Thor saga...?).

I mean no matter who writes Thor, even if he is a horrible writer, I'm always going to buy the comic no matter what. I'm a Thor fan, and always will be.

I agree. But I don't want mental, mindless Thor (if I want that I'll read the Hulk), nor do I want villainous Thor (interesting diversion though it was). I want Thor the hero.

ThorFan: My point was that I feel if the arrogant Thor is seen first, it might go over with the crowd better than you think.

No. Thats something you perhaps spend five minutes establishing, not a whole movie.

At least he would with me.

The Thor you like is not the typical Thor of the comics though.

ThorFan: But we are familiar with Thor so we will see the differences, the general public might be quick to jump and say "He is copying Spiderman, he is copying Superman."

The general public can tell a Spiderman movie from a Superman movie easily enough - give them a bit of credit. The key is making a good movie and not a bad one.

I don't know if you heard about the morons saying that the FF4 was a rip off of the Incrediables!

The thing is, you don't let morons dictate movies. Otherwise you end up with the likes of Catwoman and Superman Returns.

ThorFan: So why shouldn't we see that in the film?

Its not a comedy. No one wants to see a movie about a hero who is a total jerk. People have to cheer for him.

I think it is vital if the public or maybe ourselves are going to understand him a little bit more. Unlike the comics now we'll be able to get a real feel for him.

You don't need an entire movie to establish a 'feel' for anything.

ThorFan: I disagree very much with calling Loki a minor threat,

Hes a minor threat in the grand scheme of Thor villains. Loki is, at best Thors equal, and hes a coward. Therefore Thor will always defeat him. Unlike say, Surtur or the Destroyer, where victory is not so assured.

however then team him up with Ulik and his rock trolls or somebody and IF the movie is fully taking place in Asgard Thor and Ulik can beat the living hell out of each other while he tries to save the realm or Loki with the assistance of Ulik and company try to take over earth which Thor saves (thus making it no different from Superman.)

Won't work. Simply because if you set it on Asgard then Thor will have the Asgardians to help him. Which means he is in even less danger than if he is on his own.

Another reason why you set the first movie on Earth.

I fear we're never going to agree But who cares, that is what these boards are for, so round 3 DING DING DING!

Its an amicable discussion...but I have to refrain from unleashing my full fury upon those who still suggest Vladimir Kulich is perfect for the Thor role, or else I will surely be banned from the boards. t:

 

[Still A ThorFan]

At Least We Agree On That!